July 12, 1909

No other state constitution contains this provision; As to whether this restriction contravenes the Federal Constitution has not been determined. It is a historical fact, however, that the present 15 amendments to the Constitution were ratified by state legislatures, a majority of which had been elected before the amendments were sent to the States for ratification . (Ames on the Constitution, p , 290.)

FRIENDS OF INCOME TAX MUST BE ALERT. l\Ir . Speaker, I have already detained the House too long. I shall use every honorable means to aid in securing the ado p tion of the proposed amendment, though it is very defectively drawn. I desire however, to warn those who would restore to Cong r ess this strong arm of its taxing power by amendment to the Constitution -that they must be alert and vigilant. It is not my desire nor is it the desire of any fair-minded citiz n, e to i mp ose upon fue wealth of the country any undue or unjust proportion of the burden of taxation, but it is a matter of common knowledge that those most able to share this burden have succeeded in avoiding it totally during the last forty years. Whatever objections may be offered therefore to the imposition of the proposed income tax must necessarily be of a captious nature and designed solely to secure perpetual immunity from taxation to this class of citizens. Everyone knows that this class, in conjunction and partnership with the Republican party, now dominates and for almost a half century has dominated, every d epartmei:: t of the Government. However, in view of the :evenue nec e ssities and the unbearable tax rates, unfairly resting as they do u p on only a portion of the people, I trust enough Il e pubH c ans wiU support this amendment to insure its . adoption. We welcome them into · line, howsoever unwillingly they. come. If it were not pitiab.le, it would be amusing to behold the average Re p ublican leader fighting in earnest in behalf of a re f orm mea s ure or a progressive administrative policy. For it has been lo n g under sto od that he never enlists in such a worthy ca u se w il lin gly, but only when writhing und e r the lash of public se :n,tim e nt. This h a s been true of the Republican organization th r o l'g hout its history. Too stupid to devise and enact w h ole so m e l a ws and to formulate and execute- sound administratf\e policies, this piratical organization ~ tion is wont to wait u n til Demo c rats voi n t the way, and then with a cupidity rarely seen appropriate the great principles and policies of the Demo­ ment? cratic party, one by one. Among the doctrines of the Democratic party liter a lly stolen by its ad v er ary during the past few years may be mentioned the principle of arbitration of differe nce s between employers enga g ed in interstate comm e rce and emplo y ees; the rate regulation of railways; prosecution of tru s ts, tho u gh only an o cc asional pretense at trust suppres ion; t a riff reform, though but · a hypocritical pre ten se. at tariff rev is i on , in it s n a ture do w nw a rd before the election but upward after the el e ction ; oste n sible support of the income tax. As an e x hib-ition of the agility of this party, I call attention" to tlle following Re p ublican axioms published in that party's camp a ign text-book in 1894 :

In t h is country an income tax of any- sort is odious, and will bring odium upon any party blind enough to impose it. * * *- Prepare for the funer a l of the political party which imposes such a. burden.

REPUBLICAN TARIFF HUM B U G GEJl Y.

When that veteran showman, P. T. Barnum, gave utterance to his life experience to the effect that the people like to be humbugged, he must ha 'e had in mind also the p a inful1y cruel m a nner in which th~ Republican party, with its high-protective tariff, deceives, hnmbugs, hoodwinks, and defrauds the American people. The truth of this statement could not be - better illu s trated than by that party's present so-called "revision" of the tariff. How long will or can the country endure this "system?" Until \.Ve can secure the- imposition of an income tax, and thereby destroy it? "We shall see what we shall behold." [Applause on the Democratic side.]

Mr. LONGWORTH. I yield ten minutes to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. MILLER].

Mr. MILLER of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I have some very welldefined views on the subject of the taxation of corporations, have always believed that corporate wealth should bear its just share of the burdens of government, but do not care at this hour to enter into a lengthy discussion of the subject, but simply express an opinion as to what I deem the wisest action the House can take at this time.

We are called upon now ta pass upon the question whether or not we are willing to place a tax upon corporations. . During this discussion there has been a good bit of talk, especially among our friends on the other side of the aisle, about a tax upon wealth and not a tax upon want or upon poverty. I have never heard of anybody anywhere, either in this Hall or elsewhere, advocating any tax either upon poverty or upon want, and I imagine that the man who would advocate a tax upon either poverty or want would eventually find himself in the insane asylum, where he belongs. It max be all right for political purposes and to seek to make political capital to try to make the poor people of this country belie.ve. that some political party is wanting to rob them.

There is no political party that is foolish enough to attempt to rob the poor, and there is no political party in this country that has any desire to put any tax of any kind upon any portion of our people greater than their ability to bear the burden; but the Republican party has always favored an equitable system o.f taxation, and it is the belief of this party that all classes of our people ought to bear their just proportion of the burdens of government, and, whether they be rich or poor, that they ought to be called upon alike to bear those burdens.

l\.lr. SULZER. Does the gentleman think a protective-tariff tax is an equitable tax?

Mr. MILLER of Kansas. I think that a protective-tariff tax properly levied is not only equitable, but that it is a tax that has always brought prosperity to the American people.

It has always gi.ven employment to the labor of this country, and under this system for the pa.st twelve yea.rs our people have enjoyed the most marvelous prosperity the world has ever seen. I am surprised that the gentleman from New York comes here and complains about legislation that has given to the people of that great State the wealth it ha.s within the last twelve years.

Mr. SULZER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MILLER of Kansas. Certainly.

.l\.Ir. SULZER. Does the gentleman claim that there ever was a line written in any protective-tariff law or tax bill adopted by the Republican party that benefited the laboring man?

Mr. MILLER of Kansas , 1 say that every line ever written in any Republican platform and enacted into law upon the subject of protection has brought wealth to the American people and has given employment to- the laboring men of this country, and that it has made the poor man rich and not the rich man poor, as advocated by some gentlemen on that side.

.Mr. JAMES . The g e ntleman says that the protective policy of the Republican party has brou g ht great w e alth to the country and benefited the laboring men. I would like to ask Wm what brought on the panic and threw 3,000,000 men out of employ­

Mr. MILLER of Kansas. Some bankers of this country -. brought on a financial panic. It was not the fact that laboring men were out of employment. I remember the language used by l\Ir. Gompers in the campaign during the time when the Democratic p a rty was in power, when he said that more than two a end a half million l a b-Oring men of tllls c o untry were- out of em p lo y m en t, and that their wives and children were beg g ing for bread. And I remember s h ortly after that time, when the Rep ub li c an party en a ct e d the law of 1 8 07, when nobody was out of em p loyment and nobody be gg ing for bred. n d.

l\Ir. J Al\ IBS. Will th e gentl em an p e rmit another question?

Mr. MILLER of Kan s as. Certainly.

Mr. J.Al\IES. The gentleman puts the responsibility for the panic on the bankers. If that is true, your party in control of this Government uninterruptedly for the last twelve y e ars and almo t forty years, with the exception of four years or perhaps ei g ht years, has then legislated in such a manner that the banke r s of the country have such control of this country that they c an throw tile whole country into a panic and throw out of employment millions of men.

l\lr. l\IILLER of Kansas. I have- no time to discuss the question of the recent panic, if you are to dignify it by that nn me. It is sufficient to say that it pales into absolute insignificance in comparison with the Democratic- panic when Grover Cieveland and the Democratic party was in power.

Mr. BYRD. Will the ge-.utleman yield?

Mr. MILLER of Kan s as. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. I want to ask the gentleman this question: If the Republican policies of this country during the last forty years have been so beneficial, why is it that the Republican party wants to steal all the good things oat of the Democratic platform and enact them into law? [Laughter.] · blr~ MILLER of Kansas. ~fr. Speaker, it is not necessary for me: to. discuss the re a sons why the Republican party wants to enact certain . kinds of legislation. This great party never asks the Democratic: party when or how it shall legislate; in all the year Qf its history it has responded to the wishes of the people. And now, a.s in the p a st, it is about to write upon the statutes another wise and beneficent act of legislation; and this in re ponse to the wishes of the American people and in accord with the promise made in the last national Republican convention. And when this act is consummated, as it will be in a very few days, the tar-iff will have been revised downward, the pledges of the party sacredly kept. and the Amer L ~ . !l people will enter upon a new era of prosperity.

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. Will the gentleman yield?

l\Ir_ l\HLLEB of Kansas. Well, I will yield to · the gentleman fi • from Mi souri; he is: always fair.

Afr. RUCKER of Missouri. I understand that gentleman to say that the last forty years, with the exception of four ye a r , under Republican rule, they have benefited all the- people, and especially the laboring men. I would like- to ask the gentleman to explain, if his conclusions are correct, why it is that to-day there is a larger percentage of American people who own no homes than ever before in the world?

Mr. MILLER of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I simply say the gentleman from Missouri is mistaken.

And on the contrary I aver that there are more laboring men in America to-day who own their homes than at any other. period in the history of the Republic, and that there are more homes owned by the laboring people of America to-day than are owned by all the laborers of the rest of the world.

:Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. Oh, but that is the fact.

The SPEAKER. . .KER. Does the gentleman from Kansas yield further to the gentleman from Missouri?

:Mr. MILLER of Kansas. No; I think I will not.

There hus been a great deal of criticism, nn<l some on this side as well as on the Democratic side, of the position of . the Republican party. upon the subject of a tax upon corpora lions. I do not agree with the gentleman from Massachnsetts, who talks about this kind of legislation being "the political Jack Cade of - the future for the levying of political blackmail." That may be all right for the people of New England who ham enjoyed the benefits of the levying of political blackmail more than any other section of the country, if there has ever been any such levying as the distinguished gentleman talks about. There is not a State or municipality in thi s country that does not have a statute or ordinance of some kind in reference to taxation of wealth. Just take a man who go e into a community or city and wants to sell his wares or merchandise upon the streets of that city. What is done before he can do it? He must first go to the city clerk and get permission to sell his wares there.

What is that? Is that a direct tax? That is a tax upon his business. . And so I say, when you come to the question of corporate wealth, we do not propose a direct tax, but a tax on the bu iness of the corporation, and which the Supreme Court has already declared constitutional. While personally I favor an income tax, yet I am aware of the fact that the Supreme Court has declared such a tax unconstitutional, and for this reason I shall support a corporation tax, which is constitutional, and will vote for the submission to the people of the country for their decision an amendment to the Constitution to provide for the taxing of incomes.

Now, I want to appeal to my Democratic friends, if they are honestly in favor of an income tax, and I believe they are, to join us in this one act of legislation. Of course I remember that during the civil war every Democrat in both branches of Congress, but one, voted that the income tax was unconstit1;1- tional; but if you believe in the declaration of the Democratic platform at Denver last year, and if you believe with the utterances of your party leaders upon this floor that an income tax is constitutional, then fall in line with the Republicans who are going to enact legislation along this line and help us out upon this proposition. I agree with the gentleman from Missouri on the question of the amount of corporate wealth that ought not to be taxed. I would put it possibly as high as $10,000, at least above $7,500. .

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from Kansas has expired.

1\fr. BURLESON. I would like to know--

1\Ir. LONGWORTH. I yield the gentleman from Kansas ten minutes additional.

Mr. BURLESON. I would like to know how many Democrats were here during the civil war.

Mr. MILLER of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, there · were 45 Members here at that time, and the rest were not here because they had voluntarily gone out to destroy the Union, and that is why they were not here filling their places. I want to suggest to my friend from Texas that this is no time for a gentleman from Texas to raise this issue . We are here discussing a question Columbia . of taxation that is to be applied to our people now and not the issues growing out of the civil war. Upon that subject I will be very glad to talk at some other time, but not now.

Now, .Mr. Speaker, I want to call the attention of the gentleman from :Ma sachusetts [l\Ir. l\IcCALL]-I do not see him here, howe>er-to the fact that I do not agree with his position upon this question of taxing incomes . He says we can not do it under our Constitution, and thinks that the Con titution ought not be modified or changed so that it can be done, and says that it is a tax upon industry and upon wealth. If there is any tax in this country that is not a tax upon industry or wealth, I would like to know what it is. Why should the gentleman from New England stand here, representing that section of the country that has been made great and prosperous on account of the system of taxation of this Republic, and say that we have no right to tax the wealth of this country? New England became great and powerful under the system of protection that has made this country what it is to-day. They were more fortunately located than the States in the central or extreme West.

The population from other countries came there first, and they found the manufacturing in this country done in New England, • as it was done in that early day. So the wealth that came from abroad went to New England, as well as the laborers, and they hacl a surplus of both. Now, because a tax of this kind would rest more heavily upon New England th a n possibly any other section of the country, the first voice to be heard against it comes from that same New England, the section of the country that has been more favored by legislation than any other.

I want to suggest that that section of our country that has been so marvelously prosperous as a result oLlegislation should be the last to come here and advocate anything else than an income tax. And whether New England wants an income tax or not, I think she will find that when the subject is submitted to the American people, as it will be, three-fourths of the States of this country outside of New England will vote to change the Constitution so as to provide in case of war for the levying of a tax upon the wealth of the country to assist in saving the life of the Nation itself. The great West and the South will control in that matter, in my judgment, and I want to suggest to you gentlemen of the South, who are exceedingly anxious for the income tax, that you go home and take care of your legislatures and your States upon this subject, and I stand here as a representative of the Republican party of the Central West to pledge you my word that those great Western. States will be found voting with you for an income tax. [Applause.]

I yield back the balance of my time.

l\Ir. CLARK of Missouri. I yield five minutes to the gentleman from Tennes ee [l\Ir. SIMS]. .

l\Ir. SIMS. l\Ir. Speaker, I am not going to di sc us the tariff question, so nobody need leave the Chamber. [Laughter.] I happen to have the honor of offering the first legislation for taxing incomes of corporations as well as individual income at this session. I tried to offer an amendment to the tariff bill when it was pending in the House, but could not be recognized for that purpose . I then introduced it as a bill on th e 9th day of April, 1909. I now read it: A bill (H. R. 6864) to levy and collect a tax on the gross rec e ipts of all corporations, firms, or persons doing an interstate business.

Be it enacted, etc., That every person, firm, company, or corporation owning or possessing or having the care or management of any railroad, sleeping car, canal, steamboat, ship, barg e, canal boat, or other vessel engaged or employed in the business of transporting passengers or freight for hire, or in transporting the mails of the United States from one State or Territory of the United States to any other State or Territory, or to or from any State or Territory of the United States and the District of Columbia, and every person, firm, company, or corporation carrying on or doing an express busine s from one Stat e or Territory of the United States to any other State or Territory of the United States, or to or from any State or Territory and the District of Columbia shall be subject to and pay a special annual excise tax equivalent to one-fourth of 1 per cent of the gross receipts derived by said person, firm, company, or corporation from passengers, freight. mails, or express matter so carried from one State 01· Territory of the United States to any other State or Territory of the United State , or to or from any State or Territory and the District of Columbia; and such tax shall be rated for the transportation of persons, freight, mails, or express matter from a port or place within the United States through a foreign territory to a port or place within the United States, , and not within the same State or Territory, and shall be assessed upon and collected from persons, firms, companies, or corporations within the United Sta.tes receiving hire or pay for such transportation of persons, freights, mails, or express matter.

SEC. 2. That from every person, firm, company, or corporation owning or possessing or having the care or management of any telegraphic or telephone line by which telegraphic or telephone di patches or m ess ages are received or transmitted shall be subject to and pay a special annual excise tax of one-fourth of 1 p e r cent on the gross a.mount of all receipts of such person, firm, company, or corporation, for the transmission of dispatches and messages from one State or Territory of the United States or the Dis tr ict of Columbia to any other State or Territory of the United States or the District of It provides for a tax of one-fourth of 1 per cent upon the gross recei.Pts of individuals, firms, or corporations engaged in interstate business, upon all gross receipts from such interstate traffic, and leaves the State to tax corporations that do business wholly within the State, uninterfered with by the Federal Gov ­ ernment . It is purely an excise tax, which reaches the bondholder and everybody else in interest, and can not be evaded or manipulated. Under a very small tax of one-fourth, oneeighth, or one-tenth of 1 per cent of the gross receipts, in all probability it will bring money into the Treasury in excess of the proposed '2 per cent upon net incomes of corporations. The idea was suggested to me by reason of my service on the District Committee of this House. That system of taxation is now the law in this District of Columbia, and has been ever since I have been a Member of the House. Gas companies, sh·eet car companies, and all public-service corporations doing business in this District, in addition to paying taxes ou their fixed property, pay a tax of 4 and in s.ome cases 5 per cent on their gross receipts. Some objection has been made to this method of taxation, upon the idea that if a corporation made no money as profits it should not have to pay any part of its earnings as taxes. It is claimed that that might destroy tlle value of the property, and that it should not pay n tax when it is not making any net earnings. In this District I have rn known cases where street car companies were in the bands of receivers, when there was a deficit in earnings made every year; and yet they had to pay the same taxes on their gross receipts as the company that was making money. Now, it is not too late for us to act on this matter. I am glad the President has shown that brea.dth of · mind and depth of wisdom that when he finds one form of legislation is a better one than some one he had formerly recommended, , he is willing to submit another proposition in lieu of what at first seemed the wiser course.

Now, while the committee of conference is considering this corporation tax, let it take up this bill of mine as a mere suggestion and make it a basis of a corporation tax, leaving all the corporations chartered by the States that are doing busine s wholly within a single State to the States, counties, and municipalities. . Then provide that all corporations, partnerships, firms, or individuals doing an interstate business shall pay a tax of such per cent as the conferees may think wise upon all gross receipts from interstate business. They have interstate benefits _ and rights of which no State can deprive them. Let us levy this tax upon their gross receipts from their interstate business. Such a tax can not be evaded. It is the same as operating expenses and must be collected before even officers can be paid salaries. I have no objection to publicity of corporation affairs; in fact, I belie-ve in it; but it is not necessary to levy a tax on net incomes or earnings in order to give the Government power to investigate and properly regulate corporations doing interstate business. The men who will be obliged to make these investigations as to the net earnings of corporations are human, and many instances will be found where the statements of these special agents will not be the truth and the report a fraud. Now, under this bill of mine the tax can not be evaded. The gross receipts is the fir t thing that will show in the matter of bookkeeping. There can not be any doubt about that. The amount of the tax will be so small that there will be no inducement for evasion.

The SPEAKER pro tempo.re. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. LONGWORTH. I yield three minutes more to the gentleman.

Mr. SIMS. I am not opposed to an income tax, and as a . matter of cour e shall vote for this resolution. I am not discussing the resolution, but this other matter is now pending. The conferees now have the matter before them. This proposition of mine is not discriminating. It taxes an individual, a firm, and a corporation upon exactly the same basis.

Now, take the case of a state corporation. A number of persons of small mean get together and organize a corporation and · build a hotel or apartment house on one corner of the street. Over on the other corner a rich individual builds another one and gets the same returns from it. The Federal Government taxes the one that does its business wholly within the State and relieves the rich individual, doing identically the same kind of business, from the tax. This amendment of mine will remove all such objections. It will not be in the way of an income tax whenever an income tax bill comes before the House, becau e it is not an income tax. It is not double taxation. It is not taxation upon "prosperity and a penalty upon wealth." It is taxation that reaches all alike who do interstate business and does exact and equal justice to all subject to the tax.

Senator BEVERIDGE offered in the Senate an amendment to tax the gross receipts of corporations. He offered that amendment on the 19th of April, 1909, ten days after I had introduced my bill. The Senator from Virginia [Mr. DANIEL] offered an amendment on the 7th of July , 1009, for the same purpose; but these amendments were to tax the gross receipts of corporations only, and without any regard to whether the business was state or interstate, so that they do not make that necessary discrimination or put the tax upon corporations that get the benefit of laws applying to interstate commerce.

I have no partisan feeling about this. I hope that the conferees, although this suggestion comes from an humble source, may consider it worthy of their consideration and adopt it instead of the corporation-tax provision now carried in the bill, against which there exist so many reasonable and weighty objections that do not apply to a tax on gross receipts as proposed in my bill.

Mr. CLARK of Missouri. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia [l\Ir. BARTLETT].

Mr. BARTLETT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, any proposition to amend the Constitution of the United States should be carefully considered and not hastily adopted. This instrument, as proposed by the fathers of the Republic, many of whom had taken part in the struggle for independence and who were the wisest in their generation, if not the wisest in any generation of our history, should be preserved and only changed when the demand for change is imperative. The elements and principles of the American Constitution were neither manufactured nor borrowed, 1804. but grew up amidst and along with the American people, and were formulated by men who understood the then present needs and requirements of the American people, and who seemed to have been inspired with the capacity to see into the future so as to make a Constitution that would meet all the future needs of the American people. It has been truly described as the " most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man." It is true, as was said by Judge Storey in an early case reported in the First Wheaton, it unavoidably deals in general language. It did not suit the purposes of the people in framing this great charter of our liberties to provide for minute specifications of M powers or to declare the means by which those powers should be carried into execution. It was foreseen that this would be a perilous and difficult, if not an impracticable, task.

The instrument was not intended merely to provide for the exigencies of a few years, but was to endure through a lo~ :· · lapse of ages, the events of which were locked up in the inscrutable purposes of Providence. It could not be foreseen what new changes and modifications of power might be indi~­ pensable to effectuate the general objects of the charter, and restrictions and specifications which at the present might see 11 salutary might in the end prove the overthrow of the system itself. Hence its powers are expressed in general terms, leaving to the legislature, from time to time, to adopt its own means to effectuate legitimate objects and to mold and model the exercise of its powers, as its own wisdom and the public interests should require. .And this is as true to-day as it was when the Constitution was adopted.

THE AMENDMENTS TO CONSTITUTION.

While there are 15 amendments to the Constitution, the first 10 may be really said to be a part of the original instrument, because they were all adopted under a resolution passed on September 25, 1789, and they were adopted as amendments to the Constitution, because the Constitution could not have been ratified by the several States but for the understanding that these 10 amendments were to be adopted.

The very preamble which submitted these 10 amendments recites the fact that the States at the time they adopted the Constitution expressly desired that, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added. So that we are authorized to assert that the first 10 amendments were really a part of the great original instrument itself, because without the assurance that they would become a part of the instrument the people of the States would not have adopted the original Constitution. The eleventh amendment was adopted in 1798, on a resolution pa sed in 1794. This amendment grew out of the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States had decided that a sovereign State was liable to be sued in the courts of the United States by a private citizen. The case which gave rise to so much comment and really gave rise to the demand of the people for the adoption of the eleventh amendment was the ease of Chisholm v. The State of Georgia, reported in Second Dallas, and this decision, pronounced by a divided court, so aroused the people and so endangered the rights of the States to maintain their sovereignty that the eleventh amendment was demanded and ratified by the people.

The governor and authorities of the State of Georgia refused either to appear in the court or to respect the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case; and that other States might not be subjected to the same indignity, the eleventh amendment was adopted, which provided that the judicial power should not be construed to extend to a suit prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State or citizens subject to a foreign state. So in that case the people were compelled to protect themselves against what was deemed to be a wrong decision by the Supreme Court of the United States by an amendment to the Constitution.

The twelfth amendment grew out of the famous contest for the Presidency in 1800, in which Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Adams and Aaron Burr were candidates, Jefferson and Burr being candidates on the same ticket, one for President and the other for Vice-President, and both receiving the same number of votes. Under the Constitution as it then existed, the candidate who received the highest number of votes was to be Pre i­ dent and the one receiving the next highest was to be VicePresident. This contest for the Presidency was thrown into the House, and to avoid a recurrence of this sort of · contest for the Chief Magistracy of -the Government the twelfth amendment was adopted. The resolution proposing this amend · · ment was adopted in December, 1803, was ratified by threefourths of the States, and the proclamation carrying it into effect was issued by the Secretary of State on September 23, The other three amendments are what are known as the "war amendments." For forty years and more no resolution to amend the Constitution of the United States has been submitted to the States. The thirteenth amendment abolished slavery, which was the result of the civil war, and the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments were likewise the result of the civil war, growing out of the new relations which the slaves, who had been freed, then bore to the Government. These last two am endmen ts, in my judgment, were never really adopted. They were submitted to the States, and by the superior power of the then dominant party, with the aid armed force, the legislatures es of n t least 11 of the States were forced to consent; and it is to this day doubtful whether they were ever legally adopted or whether the requisite number of States then in the Union er-er Yotecl for their ratification. The proclamation by the Sec- 1·etary of State at the time these last two amendments were adopted is my authority for the assertion that their adoption in the manner prescribed by the Constitution is a matter of very serious question and doubt. The reason for the assertion of this opinion I need not now give, because it has been given a number of times, and the question has never been really sub mitted to the Supreme Court of the United States; but I venture to assert that if the question could ever be submitted to an impartial legal tribunal it would be evident, from the record which contains the statement of what was done by the several States in voting upon these amendments, that they had never been legally adopted and that they did not receive the approval of the requisite three-fourths of the States of the Union.

From this short history of these amendments to the Constitution, it will · be seen that the people have been very reluctant to amend the Constitution of the United States, and it is well that they should be. It is not a trivial matter or a matter to be ha tily proceeded with.

THE PROPOSED Al'>IE~DllEXT .

We have now a proposition to again amend the Constitution of the United States, growing out of the fact that the Supreme Court of the United S.tates in a decision rendered in 1895, and known as the "income-tax decision," reported in the One hundred and fifty-seventh and One hundred and fifty-eighth United States Reports, decided that Congress had not the power to levy a tax upon the incomes of the citizens of the United States without an apportionment of the tax among the States according to population-in other words, that an income tax was a direct tax, and therefore Congress had no power to levy the · same except in the manner prescribed for the levy of capitation and direct taxes. Thus the American people are again presented with the proposition to amend their fundamental law because of an extraordinary decision by the Supreme Court of United States. In the case of Chisholm v . Georgia the court held that the sovereign State of Georgia was subject to be sued by a private citizen of another State, and in that case the court abandoned the universal and accepted rule that the sovereign could not be sued except by its own consent. This so aroused the people and the representatives of the people in Congress that they insisted that the rule so promulgated by the Supreme Court of the United States, that a sovereign State should be subject to be dragged into court against its consent by a private citizen, should be cured by an amendment to the Constitution.

In the income-tax case the court, by a narrow margin . of one, again reversed what was thought to be a universal and accepted rule, that a tax upon incomes was not a direct tax and could be levied by Congress without complying with the rule of apportionment prescribed in the case of capitation and direct taxes. Up to that time and for a hundred years prior thereto, commencing .. with the case of Hylton v. The United States and ending with the ' case of Springer v. The United States, reported in the One hundred and second United States Report, it had been held that capitation taxes and taxes on land were the only direct taxes. I will not say that this decision aroused the indignation of the people, but it did create dissatisfaction with and distrust of the court; and from the date of the rendition of that decision until now there has been a constant demand on the part of the Democratic party and the Democratic masses that something should be done which would compel the wealth of the Nation to pay its just proportion of the taxes for the support of the Government: I do not believe that this amendment is necessary. I should gladly vote for a bill which would levy a tax upon incomes and require the government officials to collect it, and let the court again have the opportunity to pass upon the question. I have great respect for the courts of the country and a very high and exalted respect for the high est court of our country and the greatest court in the world; but I respectfully say that that decision by the majority of the court in the income-tax case can not be sustained or justified in principle or in justice. It b.ns done more to create want of confidence in the court than any decision rendered in recent y ears .

The members of the Supreme Court who dissented Lorn that decision, and who are as able as any of the members of the court at that time, in their dissenting opinions criticised the decision of the majority of the court in as severe · terms as I would care to employ. They said that the decision disregarded the former adjudications of the court and the settled principles of the Government, that it might well excite the gravest apprehensions, and that the decision would provoke a contest in this country from which the American people would have been spared if the court had not · overturned its former adjudications; that respect for the Constitution would not be inspired by the narrow and technical construction which the court had given that instrument; that the court had resuscitated an argument that had been exploded in the Hylton case and that had lain practically dormant for a hundred years; that it was fraught with immeasurable danger for the future of the country and that it approached the proportions of a national calam ­ ity; that it was a judicial amendment · to the Constitution; and that the decision was fraught with danger to the court, to each and every citizen, and to the Republic. No citizen would have expressed his _ disapproval of the decision in more apt terms, and, so far as I am concerned, I am content to repeat the criticisms of the judges who dissented and to adopt them as my views and criticisms of the decision. Before doing so, however, I desire to call attention to the fact that Alexander Hamilton argued the case of Hylton v. The United States, reported in the Third Dallas, for the Government, and in his brief laid down the proposition that capitation, or poll, taxes and taxes on land were the only direct taxes; that all else must of necessity be construed as indirect taxes, as contemplated by the provision of the Constitution which gives Congress authority to levy and collect taxes, excises, and duties on imports.

The Supreme Court, in its opinion, followed this definition and repeatedly announced it, and especially is that principle announced in the cases of Pacific Insurance Company v. Soule (7 Wall, 433); Yeazy Bank v . Fen.no (8 Wall., 533); Scholey v. Rew (23 Wall, 331); and Springer v . United States (102 U. S. R. , G86) .

So that the judges whose dissenting opinions I quote amply sustain me in the assertion that this decision of the court, reported in the One hundred and fifty-seventh and One hundred and fifty- eighth United States Reports, overturned the decisions of the court for a hundred years prior thereto, and that, too, upon an argument presented to it which had been exploded by the court in the Hylton case, and which for a hundred years had lain dormant, but which was revived and made to do duty in nullifying the income-tax law of 1894.

CRITICISMS OF THE DECISION IlY MEMBERS OF THE COURT.

In his dissenting opinion in the One hundred and fifty-seventh United States Reports, Justice White, after quoting many decisions which had upheld the constitutional power of Congress to levy an income tax, and showing that it was not a direct tax, said: ·

If it were nec ess ary that the previous decisions in which the court upheld this kind of tax should be repudia t ed, the power to amend the Constitution existed and should have been exercised. Since the Hylton case was decided the Constitution has been repeatedly amended. The construction which confined the word "direct" to the capitation and land taxes was not changed by these amendments, and it should not now be reversed by what seems to me to be a judicial amendment of the Cons ti tu ti on.

He further said :

I can not resist the conviction that the court's opinion and decision in this case virtually annuls its previous decisions in regard to the powers of Congress on the subject of taxation, and is therefore fraught with danger to the court, each and every citizen, and the Republic. . In his dissenting opinion, Justice Harlan referred to the decision in the following terms :

In my judgment, to say nothing of the disregard of the former adjudications of this court and of the settled practice of the Government, this decision may well excite the gravest apprehensions. It strikes at the very foundations of national authority in that it denies to the General Government a power which is, or may become, vital to the very existence and preservation of the Union in a national emergency, such as that of war with a great commercial nation, during which the collection of all duties upon imports will cease or be materially diminished. • • • ·

But this is not all. The decision now made may provoke a contest in this country from which the American people would have been spared if the court bad not overturned its former adjudications and had adhered to the principles of taxation under which our Government, following the repeated adjudications of this court, has always been administered.

But the serious aspect of the present decision is that by a new interpretation of the Constitution it so ties the hands of the legislative branch of the Government that without an amendment of that instrument, or unless this court at some future time should return to the old theory of the Constitution , Congress can not subject to taxationhowever great the needs or pressing the necessities of the Governmenteither the invested personal property of the country-bonds, stocks, and investments of all kind s . or the income ari ing from the renting of real estate, or from the yield of _Personal property--except by the grossly unequal and unjust rule of apportionment among the States. The practical effect of the decision to-day is to give to certain kinds of property a position of favoritism and advantage inconsistent with the fundamental principles of our social organization, and to invest them with power and influence that may be perilous to that portion of the American people upon whom rests the larger part of. the burdens of government, and who ought not to be subjected to the dominion of ag i aggregated wealth any more than the property of the country should be at the mercy of the lawless.

Irr the dissenting opinion of Justice Brown we find the following language:

It is difficult to overestimate the importance of these cases. I certainly can not overstate the regret I feel at the disposition made of them by the court. It is never a light thing to set aside the deliberate will of the legi lature, and in my opinion it should never be done, except upon the clearest proof of its conflict with the fundamental law. Respect for the Constitution will not be inspired by a narrow and technical construction which shall limit or impair the necessary powers of Congr e ss. * • '°'

By resuscitating an argument that was exploded in the Hylton case and has lain practically dormant for a hundred years, it is made to do duty in nullifying not this law alone, but every similar law that is not based upon an impossible theory of apportionment. • * •

It is certainly a strange commentary upon the Constitution of the United States and upon a democratic Government that Congress has no power· to lay a tax which is one of the main sources of revenue of nearly every civilized state. It is a confession of feebleness In which I find myself wholly unable to join.

While I have no doubt that Congress will find some means of surmounting the present crisis, my fear is that in some moment of national peril this decision will rise up to frustrate its will and paralyze its arm. I hope it may not prove the first step toward the submergence of the liberties of the people in a sordid despotism of wealth.

As I can not escape the conviction that the decision of the court in of government. this great case is fraught with immeasurable danaer to the future of the country and that it approaches the proportions of a national calamity, I feel it a: duty to enter my protest against it.

Surely when the members of this high court itself thus express their dissent from the decision, members of the bar and the people should not be expected to bave confidence in the decision or to belie•e that it correctly decides the question, and they are justified in believing and asserting that Congress has been depri>ed by this decision of the power to levy . taxes for the support of the Government in the way and manner intended by the Constitution. Therefore, if it requires a constitutional amendment to restore to Congress this power of levying a tax upon the wealth of the country, in order that it may bear its just proportion of the burdens of government, and to restore to the people and to Congress their right to levy and collect taxes for the support of the Government in the way it had been done for a hundred years prior to this de ~ ision, I must . vote for the amendment. I belie>e. however, that if the question was again submitted to the court, as now constituted, that the decision would be different.

STARE DECISIS.

But we are told by the gentleman from New York [Mr. PAYNE] that the court would not change the decision, but would render the same decision, because they would follow the rule of stare decisis. The court did not follow the rule of stare decisis in the Pollock case, reported in the One hundred and fifty-seventh and One hundred and fifty-eighth United States Reports, and they very frequently reverse themselves and re­ verse prior decisions of the court, and in many cases that might be cited this h::is been done.

In the case of Pollock v . Loan Co. (157 U. S., 429), the very ca e in which the Supreme Court first considered the incometax act of 1894, the Chief Justice, who agreed with the majority of the court in the One hundred and fifty-eighth United States Reports, and delivered the opinion of the court declar- . ing the income tax unconstitutional, said:

While the doctrine of stare decisis is a salutary one and is to be adhered to on proper occasions, this court should not extend any decision upon a constitutional question if it is convinced that error in principle may supervene.

Also, on page 576, he declares :

If it is manifest that this court is clothed with the power and intrusted with the duty of maintaining the fundamental law of the Constitution, the discharge of that duty requires it not to extend any decision upon a constitutional question if it is convinced that error in prin­ ~iple may supervene.

And he quotes approvingly the cases in which the same doctrine is held, viz, Lessee of Carroll (16 Howard, 275) and The Gennesee Chief (12 Howard, 443).

In this latter case the court overruled the case of The Thomas Jefferson (10 Wheat., 428). The first case, The Thomas Jefferson, hild decided that the Lakes and navigable waters connecting them were not within the scope of the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States courts, but that the jurisdiction was limited to the ebb and flow of the tides, and this decision had been followed in the Eleventh Peters, 175; but in the decision in the Twelfth Howard both cases w-ere overruled, Chief Justice Taney saying:

·we are convinced that if we follow it we follow an erroneous decision Into which the court fell, and the great importance of the question as it now presents itself could not be foreseen.

So that in the very Income Tax case in the One hundred and fifty-seventh United States Report the court demonstrates that the court did not adhere to the doctrine of stare decisis any more than they did in the Legal Tender cases, the Greenback cases, the Whisky License cases, and in a number of other cases that can readily be called to mind . In fact, in order to bold the act of 1894 unconstitutional, and that the tax provided for therein was a direct tax, the majority of the court were compelled to abandon and put aside the so-called " doctrine of stare decisis" and make " a new rule of construction, for if the court had followed the rule of stare decisis they would have upheld the act, just as that court had for a hundred years prior thereto upheld the right of Congress to enact an incometax law without violating the Constitution.

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S POSITION.

Ever since this decision in the Pollock case was rendered the Democratic party has repeatedly, in Congress and in its platforms, demanded the passage of an income-tax law, and, if necessary, the adoption of an amendment to the Constitution authorizing the levy of such a. tax. In 1896 the Democratic national platform declared that- _

It was the duty of Congress to use all the constitutional power which remained after that decision, or which may come from its reversal by the court as it may be hereafter constituted, o that the burdens of taxation • may be equally and impartially laid, to the end that wealth may be forced to bear its due proportion of the expense All who are familiar with the incidents of that campaign well remember how that part of the Democratic platform was assailed as an attack upon the Supreme Court of the United States; and yet the President of the United States, in his campaign for the nomination and after he was nominated, in substance made the same assertion. While discussing this subject, in a speech delivered in Ohio and in New York City during the campaign of 1908, President Taft used the following language : I believe a federal · graduated inheritance tax to be a useful means of raising government funds. It is easily and certainly collected. The incidence of taxation is heaviest on those best able to stand it, and indirectly, while not placing undue restriction on individual effort, it would moderate the enthusiasm for the amassing of immense fortunes. In times of gr·eat national need an income tax would be of great assistance in furnishing means to carry on the Government, and it is not free from doubt how the Supreme Court, with changed membership, would view a new income-tax law under such conditions. The court was nearly evenly divided in the last case, and during the civil war great sums were collected by an income tax without judicial interference, and it was then supposed within the federal power.

The Democratic national platform of 1908 declared that the party was in favor of an income tax and urged the submission of a constitutional amendment specifically authorizing Congress to levy a tax upon individual and corporate ' income, to the end that wealth may bear its proportionate share of the burdens of the Federal Government. The people were told by the Repub ­ lican candidate for President and by the Republican campaign orators that this was not necessary; that they favored an income-tax law if one could be enacted that would meet the approval of the Supreme Court of the United States and be held to be constitutional.

In his speech of acceptance President Taft said:

The Democratic platform demands two constitutional amendments, one providing for an income tax and the other for the election of Senators by the people. In my judgment an amendment to the Constitution for an income tax is not necessary. I believe that an income tax, when the protective system of customs and the internal-revenue tax shall not furnish income enough for governmental needs, can and should be devised which, under the decision of the Supreme Court, will conform to the · constitution.

And now this once criticised and despised position of the Democratic party is made one of the chief features of the Republican administration.

When it became apparent that the Democrats of the Senate would vote solidly in favor of an income-tax law and that a sufficient number of Republicans in the Senate would unite with them in such a move to insure the passage of the law the leaders of the Republican party in the House and the Re- publicans of th~ Senate, in their confusion and dismay, consulted the President with a view of defeating the income-tax amendment proposed to the pending tariff bill and they evolved the scheme known as the " corporation-tax a'mendment ·, to the tariff bill, and this amendment to the Constitution and these two propositions were put through the Senate by the leaders of the Republican party simply as a means for defeating the income-tax amendment. Indeed it was frankly stated by those who offered this resolution and the corporationtax amendment that it was being done solely for the purpose of defeating the income-tax amendment. I do not doubt the sincerity of the President's purpose, but I think I am authorized in saying that the purpose of the chief inaugurators of both the corporation-tax and the income-tax amendment to the Constitution was not a sincere purpose and not a desire to collect taxes from the wealth of the country, but in the end to defeat any such purpose. Both make their appearance in the House in such questionable shape and form as to justify those who are in favor of an income-tax law in doubting the sincerity of those who propose it and in believing that it is a mere pretext and subterfuge.

The Democratic party, tn 1898, during the war with Spain, and when we were passing bills .for the purpose of raising revenue to carry on that war, undertook to enact an income-tax law and offered it as an amendment on the 28th of April, 1898, to the war-revenue bill, but it was voted down by the Republicans. All the Democrats -voted for it and .all the Republicans, with a very few exceptions, voted against it. The same effort was made in the Senate, but was not successful. Senator Morgan, of Alabama, offered an income-tax amendment, which was denounced and voted against by the Republicans of the Senate. In the campaign that followed for the election of Members of effort. Congress, in the fall of 1898, this action on the pa.rt of the Democrats of the Senate and House was denounced in the campaign book issued by the Republican national congressional committee as being an effort on the part of the Democrats to embarrass the administration in raising revenue. And in the campaign book referred to these measures to tax corporations and incomes were denominated as Populistic and obsolete measures and were said to have been opposed by ' the Republicans in Congress . Now, both of these measures, which in time of war were sought to be engrafted upon a war-revenue bill and defeated by the Republican majority, in time of profound peace are proposed by the Republican . administration and will be put through Congress as Republican administration measures. These despi ed, ridiculed, and condemned Democratic measures are now to become the chief stone in the Republican arch of taxation, formulated and approved by a Republican President and adopted by a Republican Congress. The Democratic party, though out of power, has forced upon the Republican party, which is in power, the adoption of their measures and their The Republican President and his advisers do not seem to be familiar with the subject of an income tax. The President, in his message of June 16, in which h~ recommended the passage of a resolution to submit the amendment to the States conferring power to levy a tax on- incomes, says that course would be preferred to the one proposed, of reenacting a law once declared to be unconstitutional, and that to enact such a law-that is, a law " taxing incomes-would merely put upon the statute - books a law already there and never repealed. The President arid his advi se rs seem to have overlooked the fact that the act of 1894 expired on January 1, J.900, and was no longer · a living statute, and that the Dingley Act of 1807 repealed it. The President and his advisers also forgot, in recommending a tax upon all corporations and joint-stock companies, except national banks (otherwise taxed), that national banks are not · now otherwise taxe<l-at least not taxed in the way this bill proposes to tax other corporations, but are simply taxed upon the issue of their notes. The truth of it is that the President and the Republican leaders who advised the legislation were in such a hurry to have something done that would defeat the immediate passage of an income-tax law that they did not inform themselves as to the law of the land as it exists to-day. It is in their hurry and desire to perpetuate the high protective-tariff system as long as possible and to prop up this oppressive system of taxation, now tottering to its fall, that these propositions for a corporation feat it. and income tax are made to temporarily repel the assaults . which are now being made upon that system and to divert the attention of the people by pretending to favor the raising of revenue from sources that a:re not desired by them to be reached by taxation; because if sufficient revenue can be eventually raised by this income and corporation tax from the wealth of the country, there is no question but that the people will demand that the high protective rates now existing and being continued by the legislation of the present Congress shall be reduced.

Therefore, because I believe the income tax to be the most just, equitable, and proper tax that Congress can levy, and because I desire to take from the backs of the masses of the people some of the burdens of taxation and lay it . upon the pockets of those who do not now bear their just share of the burdens of government, and because in no other -way am I permitted to show my . approval of this method of :taxation, I shall :vote for the resolution; but with the fear and belief, however, that it will not receive the sanction of the legislatures of a sufficient number of States to bring about its adoption; and if this effort is not successful, then the hope and desire of the American people and of the Democratic party to have an income-tax law passed by Congress will have been defeated; and the courts of the United States-the Supreme Court especially-will take this action of · Congress, in adopting this resolution, as -their judgment that no law can now be constitutionally passed imposing m1 income tax; and if the legislatures of three-fourths of the States shall not ratify the proposed amendment the Congress will · take that as an expression of the will of the _ people that they do not desire it. If this should be the result, then we shall go on our way in tlte future as we have for many years past, and place the burdens of taxation upon the consumption of the people and exempt from such burdens the wealth of the country. I hope I am mistaken, and that the adoption of this amendment and its presentation to the several States will so arouse the people to the justice and propriety of such a tax that they will force the le g islature of the States to adopt it. But every expedient available to the organized wealth and greed of the country will be exercised to defeat it, and we know too well the efficacy of such combined As I have already stated, l\!r. Speaker, I do not believe this resolution is necessary in order to tax incomes, nor am I alone in that belief. However, I shall vote for the resolution , because it is the only way in which the Republican majority will permit it to be presented to us at this session of Oongre s; at every other session they have not permitted its consideration. This is the only opportunity I will have by my vote to express my belief in the correctness of the principle of taxation that imposes a tax on incomes in order to compel those who are able to do - so to bear a just proportion of the burdens of government, and thus in some measure -relieve the masses · from the burdens they bear. I have said, and have demonstrated, that I am not alone in the belief that such a resolution as this is unnecessary . After the Supreme Court rendered that most remarkable decision in 1 95, in my opinion the most remarkable ever rendered by it, and one that can be less sustained than any other; one which was characterized as a public calamity by one of the justices, and by another-one of the ablest that ever sat in that court-as "judicial amendment to the Constitution; " the Democra.tic party in · 1896; as I have shown from its platform of that year, declared in favor of an income tax, and demanded that Congress should use whatever power was left to it after that decision, or that might come to the court by reason of a changed personnel, in having this decision reviewed. That declaration in the Democratic platform of 1896 was heralded by the 'Republicans and by those who are opposed to the Democratic party as b 0 being an. attack upon the Supreme Court. But in 1908 the Repu b lican candidate for President, who is now the President of the L"nite<l States, declared in the speech in which he accepted the nomination of the Republican partyreferring to the fact that the Democratic platform demands a constitutional amendment-and in other speeches made during the campaign, that such an amendment was not necessary and advocated the present enactment of the income tax, and said that, in view of the changed membership of the court since the decision, it was not certain that that court would declare the law unconstitutional. Now, in order to defeat the present enactment of such a law, the President and his chief advisers insist upon this amendment to the Constitution. I shall now vote for this proposition reluctantly, because I do not - believe it is necessary and because I know it has found its way into this House only because the proponents of it believe and hope the proposition, when submitted to the States, will · be rejected, " ted, as in all probability it will be, by a sufficient number to deThen the opportunity for an income tax will be gone forever, and the same old scheme of taxing the many for the benefit of the few will go merrily on .

We have been told by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr . KEH E R] that the Democratic party is in favor of an income tax in time of peace, but never in time of war . The Democratic party in 1898 in the House and in the Senate proposed to the war-revenue bill an amendment to tax " the incomes of the country to aid in carrying on the war with Spain, and the Democrats in botb H o uses voted for it, and with but few · notable exceptions the Republicans in the House and Senate voted against it. That is the record made by the Democratic party, which I have here . Not only that, but the campaign for the election of Members of Congress came on in the fall of 1808, and I hold in my hand your campaign text - book, in which you characterized the effort o f the Democrats to put upon the wa.r- . revenue bill an income tax and a corporation tax as both being efforts united in by silver Republicans, Populists, and Democrats, and boasted that these measures were defeated by the Republicans . You had a.n opportunity in time of war to vote for this measure, but you did not do it. It does not lie in the mouths of Republican.; to charge that the Democrats ha:ve only favored an income tax in time of peace; the record of the parties in Congress demonstrate the falsity · of such assertion. This resolution is o n l y here for consideration now because the present leader of the Re.publi can party, the senior Senator from Rhode Island, and his Re pu b lican coadjuto r s, who really are opposed t o it, · conceived , and inaugurated the propositions for the corporation tax and the income-tax amendment and · offered them to the Senate and the country in order to defeat the passage by the Senate of an income-tax amendment to the pending tariff bill. That is the only reason it is here, under false colors and for no good purpose. . [Applause.]

l\Ir. HENRY of Texas. l\lr. Speaker, the proposition here pending is a joint resolution to amend the Constitution ancl authorize the laying and collecting of an income tax. Such amendment, when adopted, shall constitute Article XVI of the Constitution and read:

The Congress shall have power to levy and collect tax.es on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. · Amendment to the Constitution may be secured in two ways. Congress by two-thirds -vote may propose them to the States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of the States by action of their respective legislatures or conventions in such States, as Congress may require in the proposal, shall be valid to all intents and purposes as a part of the Constitution. Or on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the States a federal constitutional convention for the purpose of amendments may be called by Congress.

In this instance Congress proposes the · amendment, with a requirement that the legislatures of the several States must act upon the same, and thus excludes the method of conventions in the States. It is gratifying to me that I am now as a representative of my people able to cast my vote for this meritorious proposal. For more than twelve years it has been my privilege to consistently advocate · such an amendment to the Constitution. For that many years at each recurring campaign I have pledged my constituency that this vote should be-given by me, and now that the auspicious time has arrived such promise shall be fulfilled as, with exultant feelings, my name is recorded with those who advocate an income-tax amendment.

Iri February, 1896, my constituency were informed in a canvass before the primaries that "I advocate an income tax upon the wealth of this country. I believe it should bear its just proportion of t:i:ie burdens of taxation. Congress should speedily submit an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, if necessary, authorizing the levying and collecting of an income tax, and if I should be elected a Representative I shall support such amendment and tax." In June, 1896, the Democratic convention, commissioning me to represent my party, duly selected delegates and proclaimed as a platform utterance that-

The wealth of the country should bear its just and equal proportion of taxation, and we here declare for a properly distributed tax upon the incomes of the Nation. And w~ believe that the Constitution of the United States should be so amended as to insure the legality of such a Heartily concurring in such a declaration, I accepted the nomination and was elected a Representative in Congress. Every two years since my constituency ha-ve received a similar pledge from me, and substantially every convention nominating me has contained likewise a declaration favoring an income tax and constitutional amendment warranting the same. Hence, with peculiar pride, I this day redeem a promise to a generous constituency so long conferring political honors upon me.

A Representative is strictly responsible to his particular constituency, and should reflect their views upon political questions; and in this instance my vote not only gives emphasis to their views, but expresses deep-seated convictions .long entertained by me. l\fr. Speaker, the country will not omit to note that the Republican party is now coming over to the position so long occupied by the Democratic party. For long years your party has denounced and bitterly assailed the Democracy because, forsooth, we cherished the view that swollen fortunes and incomes of the rich should bear their just tribute and pay a part of the tax burdens of the country under a properly framed income-tax law. At last the scales have dropped from your eyes; you see a great light and now rush precipitately into Democratic territory. We are glad to have you, and to prove our joy, while we know you are filching Democratic contentions, are willing with unanimous voice to join you now in submitting the proposed amendment to the States.

In the form submitted here the amendment does not precisely suit me. We are anxious to witness the adoption of the amendment in the several States, and as Democrats would use every precaution in its submission to guarantee its ratification. At the proper time I shall endeavor to amend the resolution by providing that it shall be submitted to conventions in the States in preference to the legislatures thereof. To that end, let us amend the Senate joint resolution by striking out in lines 5 and 6 the words "which when ratified by the legislatures of threefourths of the several States" and insert "which when ratified by conventions in three-fourths of the several States." By the adoption of this changed verbiage we submit the amendment directly to the body of the people in the respective States. It goes then to their homes, their firesides, their consciences and individual judgments, and they write the verdict and select their own delegates to constitutional conventions charged with executing a public trust. This course was pursued when the original Constitution was submitted to the people in the States, and had it not been so there is much doubt as to what would have been the fate of that cherished document. As it was, even in the constitutional state conventions, it barely weathered the storm, so close was the vote on its ratification in some of them. I dread its submission to the legislatures and shudder at the outcome, so anxious am I that it shall prevail, but shall vote for it even if it can not be amended as already suggested by me. Let us not proceed blindly and heed not the breakers and difficulties ahead. The Senator from Rhode Island has already stated with unusual candor that the proposed corporation tax and this amendment here being considered constitute a mere subterfuge to circumvent the passage of the Bailey-Cummins income-tax amendment. He has given the country warning . And when he and those who think like him leave this capital, they will return to their homes with guns trained against the ratification of this amendment. For my part, I am for the submission and ratification of the amendment, and no hippodrome performance shall here or elsewhere characterize my conduct. In carrying forth this plan of equality in taxation, let us make sure we . are lifting the unjust burdens from the shoulders of the poor and placing a proportionate share where it manifestly belongs-on the pocketbooks of the country. [Applause on the Democratic side.] This fair result may not be accomplished by this day's work if we fail to send this amendment directly to the people in conventions. Let it not be misunderstood that not only can the legislatures of 12 States defeat the amendment. but the half of the legislatures of 12 States may do so. It can be defeated in the following fashion: Each legislature has two branches of coordinate power. One branch may favor and the other oppose the amendment by the bare majority of 1, and the amendment fails in that- State. The senate in Connecticut has 35 members. Eighteen members of that body can defeat the amendment there. Rhode Island has 38 senators, and 10 can thwart the will of the people in that State and disregard the amendment. New Hampshire has 24 members in her state senate, and with 13 senators can - overwhelm the amendment. And so · in many States. However, leave it to the people and permit them to choose their delegates with an eye single to the adoption of this amendment and they would not dare disregard a sacred trust reposed in them by the sovereign voters. When we consider the influences dominating some legislature~. this point can not be too emphatically stressed and heralded to the country. A.ye, one-twelfth of the people may defeat the amend ­ ment under the plan here proposed. Undoubtedly a vast majority of the American voters favor an income tax and this amendment. It is not unconservative to say that 90 per cent of them would vote for it in a blanket election throughout the United States, and yet by this plan you are now adopting you place it in the power of a very small minority to tl'l.rottle the voice of over 80,000,000 freemen, whose voices by untrammeled ballot would register a different edict.

I · should feel recreant to my duty if I failed to point out the dangers and difficulties lurking in our pathway should we neglect to adopt my amendment and send the resolution directly to the people in convention assembled. In that event it will be the sole issue, uncomplicated with manifold interests and combinations in various legislatures. If you are sincere in this sudden conversion to an income tax, aid us in putting it in hospitable hands in the several States and not throw it in hodgepodge with every conceivable influence i.n many States. Are you willing to trust your constituencies? If YOJl are, the prospect seems bright for affirmative action on this proposition. If not, and you insist upon denying the people a direct voice in this decisive moment, my forebodings are gloomy, and I fear the chances of an income-tax law are far removed. [Applause on the Democratic side.] It is a difficult matter to secu r e the ratification of an amendment under the most favorable auspices, and we should proceed with caution here if we wish our object attained, and not send this re olution to the States handicapped with enormous conditions. A convention will be responsive to the people's desires; a legislature in many States will but register the will of politicians and questionable interests. To illustrate the delicacy of the problem before us, we have but to recur to the history of the adoption of the Constitution of 1787. This was done in conventions of the various States. In some of the States, and especially the larger ones, the vote was exceedingly close, to wit: Virginia, ·39 to 97; Massachusetts, 187 to 168; New York, 30 to 27; Rhode Island, 34 to 32. A change of _ 2 votes to the negative each in New York and Rhode Island would have changed the destinies of this Ilepublic. As It was, some State~ notably North Carolina and Rhode Island, remained out of : the Union many months. It is= rarely a wise thing to engage in prophecy ,, and · yet r can not refrain from reflecting that those · of as spared to look . back upon these scenes enacted here to-day may recognize the committal of a sad mistake in · referring this measure. to . the legislatures and not to the voice of the voters.

INCOME-TAX LAW AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMEN'l' DEMO.CRATIC '

DOCTRINE.

The country: should and does - under.stand ! that the enactment of an income-tax law and the submission of this amendment are scope. of distinctive Democratic origin. 1 While the Republican party has opposed, ridiculed, and viciously assailed them, the Democracy, undaunted, has , made the fight for the people. You have voted · against it in this House and not until the wrath of the · public. ha.s driven you have you ever advocated it. However, when you embrace so good a me a sure, we rejoice in joining you while another sound doctrine of the Democratic party is - indorsed by the country and forced through Congress . by . public opinion over the unconverted consciences of . some · men who . are voting with us . on this - occ ::i sfon.

In 1896 the Democratic convention pronounced unequivocally for an income tax. In plain language we · said . :

* • Until the money question is settled we are · opposed to · any agitation for further ch a n g e:; ~ our tariff laws, . except such are are nec e ssary to make the d e ficit m revenue caused by the · adverse deci s ion of · the Supreme Co u rt on the income tax. But for · this decision by the Supi· e me Court , th er e would be no deficit in the revenue under th~ law pa s ~e~ by a Demo c ratic Congress in . strict pursuance of the uniform <!e c 1s!ons of that court for nearly .one. hundred . years, that. court having - rn that decision sustained constitutional objections to · its · enactment which had p r eviou s l y been overruled. by the ablest judges who ever sat on that bench. We declare that. it .i . s the duty; of Congi:ess to use. all the constitutional power which remains after that decision, or which may come by its reversal by the court, as it may · hereafter be constituted; so that the burdens of- taxation may be equally and impartially laid, to the end that wealth maY. · bear its. due proportion. :Jf the expenses. of. the Government.

From that day to this we have urged and pleaded for . its . adop· tion. The Republican party has . scoffed . at if and . scorned to believe in it until lashed by public ~ conscience. In 1908 · the: Democracy pronounced in fa:vor of such law and amendment. We said:

We favor an · income tax as pact . of our revenue system, and we - urge the submission of a constitutional amendment specifically authorizing Congress to levy and collect tax upon individual and corporate incomes, ~~ ~: . We~etr~it Go~~~1;{m~l bear its , proportionate · share of: the burdens Again the Republican party-was as silent as . the - tombs of. the Ptolemies. You did not favor it then, or you would have. · said so in your platform utterances. . In: season arrdl out of season taxation." Mr; Bryan and those wfio · followed him · with unfaltering: feethave never wavered in their devotion to · this principle; and although defeat overtook him, be will live- : in history a.s a ' patriot and benefactor- to mankind when those who scoffed at his im, perishable name are buried ! beneath the dust' or oblivion; . Th the Republican party campaign text-book for the yeal'.1894 · you issued this declaration to the people: ·

In this country an income tax of : any sort is , odious; and will bring odium upon any party blind enough to impose it *' * • Prepare for the funeral of the political party which imposes. such , a . burden.

Evidently, then, your. conversion : dates subsequent to this announcement.

DESIRABILITY OF AN INCOME-TAX LAW • .

We have now reached a point where · an . income. tax seems = an inevitable necessity. The appropriations of the- Federal Government · have -· become: so great that the internal-revenue · taxes and import duties no longer suffice. The Republican party must seek other sources of revenue. Dreading. to embrace Democratic conventions as a temporary makeshift, _ they are proposing a so-called ' "corporation tax,” which will be tiut shifted from the corporation treasuries to the backs of the people. The appropriations and the obligations:- of: the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1910, amount to the exorbitant sum of $1,070,482,732.12. Considering postal receipts and other items that might be properly in c luded and subtracted, this Government must raise about $500,000,000 from customs receipts and other sources, c e rtain · items, as explained by the Secretary of the Treasury, being . eliminated. The · most optimistic advocate of the Payne-Aldrich . bill does not contemplate as now framed ; that it will raise from customs receipts much in excess of $350,000,000. Ther.efore, needing a little short of $500,000,000 from customs receipts and otherwise- to supply governmental demands, resort must be had' to some · source for the residue of $150,000,000 1 above · all the money ; that c:an . pos-- sibly be brought in tlirough the custom-houses under this Payne-Aldrich bill. Hence ; we ·· have ' now reached tlie " point in our fiscal. affairs when · tfie revenues from , internal-revenue ~ laws and customs duties fail to furnish sufficient funds to run the G-Overnment. There < is · a- shortage-in · that regard ' of more th a n $150.000,000 annually. rn · accordance with my judgment that amount should be laid upon the incomes · of the country by the enactment- of a genuine income-tax law. In- lieu of this some propose" an inheritance tax and others a corporation tax. Ilow- '. ever, if an income-tax statute be properly drawn, it will ' rea c h, to a great extent, these sources · and the three may be wisely combined in one act; the income tax embracing · the corpor a tion . aµd inheritance . tax and . many other items not within their Equality in taxation should be the north star to light our pathway and direct our feet in the enactment of such statutes. No t a x more equitably and wisely distributes . the burdens of government. than an income tax. It is resorted to in almost all civilized nations. In England the government collects a "property aruL income tax” amounting to £33,930,000. A little less fu3n _ $1DO,OOO.OOO of . this amount comes from incomes alone. tn the British Empire- wealth is required to shoulder its due . proportion or governmental burdens. lh fact, there most taxation rests upon the wealth. of the Kingdom. And the following countries are among those- having income-tax laws: ~b Prussia for more than thirty years it has been in operation. . For more . than that length of. time Austria. has tried . this- tax and proved it to be a success. . In Italy, like.wise, it has been demonstrated J. ted as a. revenue . measure. And so with the Netherlands. It is: dJ +-. ·at t · b · · th d tr' f • th nee ess LO enumerate . e co~ ries em rnci:ig ~ oc me, or e trend of the world is. . to it, and no sentiment can much longer stay it in America. rt in this form it is defeated, American voters will' rise up and find. a way to have the wrong 0 O' righted by another Supreme Court. We should lay upon the backs of those with sufficient incomes a tax of a. hundred millions of dollars: The Bailey-Cummins amendment meets my cordial appro v ar and if I had the power, it would speedily become a l a w and the Supreme Court again be given. the opportunity to determine its , · validity. I would · cheerfully vote for: this amendment with the belief. that the Supreme Court would sustain. it and obviate t he submission of a . constitutional amendment. My per s onal pr ef erence-woul<L be - for a graduated income tax. Being the least inquisitorial of ' all taxes . and based upon sounder principl e s of equity than all , others; such a tax would have my cheerful sup ::. port. No one has ever stated the best. features of such a system more felicitously than Adam Smith. He said:

Th& subjects af" · ~:verr. State ought to contribute · to the support o f the Government, a;s nearly as possible in pro Q ortion to tlieir respective abilities-that is, in proportion to the - revenue- which tbeyc respectively enjoy under the ~ protection of the _ State. In . the _ o bs er.vatI<!rr or n.e g lect of this maxim consists what is · called the . " equality or inequality of It is undeniable that an income tax will reach millions of wealth:--bonds. and stocks-that would never be touched by a corporation or inheritance. tax. It is advocating no new and strange . doctrine . to favor an . income tax. On many- occasions during " gr.eat emergencies this method of taxation has · been resorted toj and proved abundantly satisfactory. .A:nd now, with a · depleted Treasury, with swollen . fortunes all around us evading _. taxation and receiving . the . protection of the Government, and civilized. communities . everywhere recognizing the economic fairness · ot such a . tax-, and with the- admitted contention that it contains the. humane and sublime ble s sing . of equality. to all men, the time is ripe and appropriate for this Government to go forward and keep avace Wifu the progress and civilization. of mankind: .

SUPREME COURT DECISION- ERRONEOUS, AND SHO U LD DE RECONSIDERED wrTHouT coNSTITUTIDNAL..A.M.ENDM EN T.

1\Ir. Speaker, no member · o:E his profession has · a higher regard · for the dignity of the courts than I have; but f refuse to subscribe · to the · doctrine- that "the ' king can do · no . wrong" and that the courts- are infallible. In a ·. respectful way, as a citizen and a Representative, I have a right to . challenge the d ee i sion of the- Supreme Court in the Pollock . Income Tax case. If any . opinion of that court ever received practically the uni- versal disapproval of. the ' bar and the bench · of the ctrnnh·y, it is that case. The - very · flower of. the American. bar now concur with practical unanimity that the judgment of the court was erroneous. The- - court itself is · rapidly curtailing-- the tor e of the same- and stripping it of much . of. · its vital efficiency. It has never received . the respect of the bar and country due an adjudication from that ; august tribunal. . Q b Consequently we are warranted in claiming the right to send: another similar tax law to that court ' and · ask that tile question be reexamined and correctly decided. Such cour e- commends itself to me with much more force than the submi sion of a : constitutional amendment, which . might · be construed as · an · admission b y , C o ngress that it is: now ; without authority t<J · pass the · proposed income­ ) tax law, whicfiracquiescence I : am not. willing:- to- gi;ve.

It is no new thing to challenge an erroneous opinion of this high court. On other occasions they have been questioned, aye, bitterly assailed, and have in the end reversed themselves and righted their judgments. While my respect for the court is adequate, I hope my regard for righteous decision and the just demands of an overburdened, oppressed, and groaning people is equal thereto, and perhaps outweighs in that direction the partiality for that honorable court, who, after all, are but the creatures of government directed by sovereign men who fashioned this Republic. And for those people I have a right to speak in my place here. The court did not hesitate to overturn the established law of a hundred years, and why should we halt in asking them to reconsider, in the interests of more than eighty millions of people, their judgment so universally condemned by the American bar and citizenship? It is peculiarly appropriate here and now to recur to the familiar history of income-tax laws and the decisions of the Supreme Court touching them.